Relative Abuse Liability of GHB in Humans
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Neuropsychopharmacology (2006) 31, 2537–2551 & 2006 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0893-133X/06 $30.00 www.neuropsychopharmacology.org Relative Abuse Liability of GHB in Humans: A Comparison of Psychomotor, Subjective, and Cognitive Effects of Supratherapeutic Doses of Triazolam, Pentobarbital, and GHB Lawrence P Carter1, Brian D Richards1, Miriam Z Mintzer1 and Roland R Griffiths*,1,2 1 2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Although preclinical studies suggest that GHB has low likelihood for abuse, case reports indicate that GHB is abused. This study evaluated the relative abuse liability of GHB in 14 volunteers with histories of drug abuse. Psychomotor, subjective, and cognitive effects of a broad range of GHB doses (2–18 g/70 kg), up to a dose that produced severe behavioral impairment in each participant, were compared to placebo and two abused sedative/hypnotic drugs, triazolam (0.5 and 1 mg/70 kg) and pentobarbital (200 and 400 mg/70 kg), under double-blind, double-dummy conditions at a residential research facility. In general, GHB produced effects similar to triazolam and pentobarbital, although GHB was not identified as a benzodiazepine or barbiturate by participants that correctly identified triazolam and pentobarbital as such. On most measures of likelihood of abuse (eg ratings of liking, reinforcing effects), effects of pentobarbital were significantly greater than those of triazolam, with GHB being intermediate. GHB produced significantly greater negative subjective effects, including nausea, than the other drugs. Memory impairment after GHB was less than that after triazolam and pentobarbital. Within participants, the dose–effect function for sedation was steeper for GHB than for triazolam and pentobarbital. Also, at higher doses, GHB was associated with greater sedation and more variability across participants in sedation. Taken together, these data suggest that the profile of effects of GHB only partially overlaps with that of triazolam and pentobarbital. Although the likelihood for GHB to be abused is intermediate to triazolam and pentobarbital, the possibility of accidental overdose (ie greater sedation than intended) with GHB appears to be greater. Neuropsychopharmacology (2006) 31, 2537–2551. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301146; published online 26 July 2006 Keywords: GHB; triazolam; pentobarbital; drug abuse; subjective effects; human INTRODUCTION use of GHB, which has been reported in North America (Miotto et al, 2001; Romanelli et al, 2003; Barrett et al, Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) is a metabolite of the 2005), Europe (Bellis et al, 2003; Gonzalez and Nutt, 2005; inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid Liechti et al, 2006), and Australia (Degenhardt et al, 2005). (GABA) that fulfills many of the criteria of a neurotrans- Despite these reports of recreational GHB use by humans, mitter (Maitre, 1997). GHB is used clinically for treatment the results of preclinical studies of the reinforcing effects of narcolepsy in the US (Xyrem; Fuller and Hornfeldt, of GHB in rodents and non-human primates have been 2003; Borgen et al, 2004) and for treatment of alcoholism in equivocal (for a review see Nicholson and Balster, 2001). Europe (Alcover; Poldrugo and Addolorato, 1999; Beghe` For example, GHB was not self-administered intravenously and Carpanini, 2000). Reports of GHB overdose (Caldicott (i.v.) in four monkeys trained to self-administer PCP et al, 2004; Kintz et al, 2005), withdrawal (Galloway (Beardsley et al, 1996), but was self-administered more et al, 1997), and drug-facilitated sexual assault (Schwartz than saline (but less than methohexital) by two out of three et al, 2000; Varela et al, 2004) have appeared in the monkeys trained to self-administer methohexital (Woolver- literature and are thought to be related to the recreational ton et al, 1999). In studies that have reported i.v. self- administration of GHB in mice, the total dose of GHB that *Correspondence: Dr RR Griffiths, Department of Psychiatry and was self-administered was either not reported (Martellotta Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins UniversityFBPRU, 5510 Nathan et al, 1998) or was relatively low (5–7 mg/kg; Fattore et al, Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA, Tel: + 1 410 550-0034, Fax: + 1 410 550 0030, E-mail: [email protected] 2001) and there was no additional evidence to suggest that Received 14 February 2006; revised 24 May 2006; accepted 30 May the doses of GHB that were self-administered (0.05 and 2006 0.1 mg/kg/inf) were discriminable or had other behavioral Online publication: 31 May 2006 at http://www.acnp.org/citations/ effects. Rats have been shown to consume more of a GHB Npp053106060093/default.pdf (sodium salt) solution than water in a two-bottle choice Relative abuse liability of GHB in humans LP Carter et al 2538 procedure (Colombo et al, 1995); however, in the same drugs and without significant medical or psychiatric illness procedure, rats consumed the same amount of sodium (other than substance abuse). One participant reported chloride solution as GHB solution, and did so in a (salt) extensive past experience with GHB. Eleven participants concentration-dependent manner (Colombo et al, 1998). were Caucasian (79%) and three were African-American Lastly, GHB (175–350 mg/kg) has been shown to produce (21%). The median age of participants was 27 years conditioned place preference in rats; however, a greater (range: 20–43) and the median weight was 72 kg (range: number of conditioning trials was required with GHB than 60–98). Details regarding participant screening and with other classes of drugs such as opioids and ampheta- informed consent are similar to those described previously mines, suggesting that GHB might not be as reinforcing as (Griffiths et al, 1980). This study was approved by other drugs of abuse (Martellotta et al, 1997; Itzhak and Ali, the Institutional Review Board of Johns Hopkins Univer- 2002). Thus, results of the evaluation of the relative sity School of Medicine. Participants gave their written reinforcing effects of GHB in rodents and non-human informed consent before beginning the study and were paid primates have been somewhat inconsistent, which might be for their participation. partly due to the use of different species, routes of administration, doses, and behavioral end points. General Procedures Few clinical studies have evaluated abuse-related effects of GHB, and to our knowledge, no study has specifically After completing the screening procedures, eligible indivi- examined the abuse liability of supratherapeutic doses of duals were admitted to the residential behavioral pharma- GHB in a population of recreational sedative abusers. In one cology research unit at Johns Hopkins University Bayview study in opioid-dependent patients, 30 mg/kg (2.1 g/70 kg) Campus. Participants were informed that during their GHB was found to significantly increase subjective ratings participation they would receive various drugs, adminis- of ‘good mood,’ ‘spaced,’ ‘sluggish,’ and ‘carefree’ without tered orally, that could include sedatives, muscle significantly affecting psychomotor performance or ratings relaxants, antianxiety medications, antihistamines, stimu- of ‘liking’ (Rosen et al, 1997). In an unblinded outpatient lants, and weight loss medications. They were also informed study that evaluated the ability of a larger dose of GHB that one of the drugs they would receive would be (50 mg/kg or 3.5 g/70 kg tid) given three times daily for 24 GHB, an FDA-approved sleep-inducing agent for the weeks to promote abstinence from alcohol in alcohol- treatment of narcolepsy. The consent form also indicated dependent patients, approximately 10% of the patients that, ‘small doses [of GHB] usually produce an effect similar increased the dose of GHB by 6–7 times the therapeutic to alcohol’ and ‘larger doses induce loss of consciousness dose to 300–350 mg/kg tid (21–24.5 g/70 kg tid), suggesting and sleep.’ Other than receiving this general information, that GHB was reinforcing in this subset of alcoholic patients participants were blind to the type of drug administered (Addolorato et al, 1996). each day. Participants were told that the purpose of The present placebo-controlled, double-blind study was the study was to determine how different drugs affect undertaken to evaluate the relative abuse liability and to mood and behavior. Other than this general explanation of compare the psychomotor, subjective, and cognitive effects purpose, participants were given no instruction of what of GHB to triazolam and pentobarbital in participants with they were supposed to do or of what outcomes might be histories of sedative drug abuse. Triazolam and pento- expected, although they were required to practice the barbital were chosen as positive controls because these psychomotor and computer tasks (eg Circular Lights and compounds are known to be abused (Griffiths and Johnson, Computer Questionnaires) before the start of the study. 2005), have well-characterized positive reinforcing effects in Before admission to the residential unit, participants humans (Roache and Griffiths, 1985; Zawertailo et al, 2003), provided a urine sample that was screened for the presence are used for therapeutic indications similar to GHB (ie of commonly abused drugs. induction of sleep and alcohol withdrawal), and have On the first day of the study, participants